Message-ID: <7299901.1075853432090.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 02:45:00 -0700 (PDT) From: bradmonovich@lockeliddell.com To: pthompson@akllp.com, taylor.terry@corp.sysco.com, katz.aaron@corp.sysco.com Subject: RE: Sysco Energy Services and Sales Agreement Cc: bswanstrom@lockeliddell.com, chuck.randall@enron.com, hgutier@enron.com, dasmus@enron.com, msmith1@enron.com, christopher.riley@enron.com, elizabeth.sager@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: bswanstrom@lockeliddell.com, chuck.randall@enron.com, hgutier@enron.com, dasmus@enron.com, msmith1@enron.com, christopher.riley@enron.com, elizabeth.sager@enron.com X-From: "Radmonovich, Barbara" X-To: "'Thompson, Peter J.'" , "'taylor.terry@corp.sysco.com'" , "'katz.aaron@corp.sysco.com'" X-cc: "Swanstrom, Bill" , "'Chuck Randall (E-mail)'" , "'Hector Gutierrez (E-mail)'" , "'Debbie Asmus (E-mail)'" , "'Mike Smith (E-mail)'" , "'Chris Riley (E-mail)'" , "'elizabeth.sager@enron.com'" X-bcc: X-Folder: \Elizabeth_Sager_Nov2001\Notes Folders\Notes inbox X-Origin: Sager-E X-FileName: esager.nsf At Bill's request, I am attaching his comments to the latest draft of the agreement. Barbara Barbara H. Radmonovich Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP 600 Travis 3300 Chase Tower Houston, Texas 77002 713/226-1310 FAX: 713/223-3717 bradmonovich@lockeliddell.com -----Original Message----- From: Swanstrom, Bill Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 5:13 AM To: 'Thompson, Peter J.'; taylor.terry@corp.sysco.com; katz.aaron@corp.sysco.com; Swanstrom, Bill Cc: Chuck Randall (E-mail); Hector Gutierrez (E-mail); Debbie Asmus (E-mail); Mike Smith (E-mail); Chris Riley (E-mail); elizabeth.sager@enron.com; Radmonovich, Barbara Subject: RE: Sysco Energy Services and Sales Agreement The following are my thoughts on the draft (without discussion with Sysco): 1.? In Section 1.3.2, why should curtailed usage be applied towards Excess Usage?? How is EESI at risk if Actual Usage (not including curtailed energy) is within the permitted band?? Same comment in Section 2.2.4. 2.????? In Section 3.5, if we don't elect to treat the Facility as a Closed Facility for purposes of Schedule 2.0 within 24 months, your draft would have us making Deficiency Usage payments forever, which is inconsistent with the rationale you provided for requiring a 24 month cut-off.? We assumed that after 24 months, if we didn't make an election, we would be required to make an Early Termination Payment. 3.????? In Section 3.6, I will send some changes that reflect the fact that we can substitute a Closed Facility with multiple Substitute Facilities, so long as we bear any additional costs (which I think is what we discussed).? Also, in the last sentence of that Section, we had discussed treating Excess and Deficiency Usage situations the same as we usually do, which means that EESI might end up owing Sysco money for such Usage.? I'll send proposed changes on this point. 4.????? In Section 4.6, the language you deleted still needs to apply to (b)(iii), unless EESI is willing to agree to continue to be obligated. I'll follow up with a mark-up later. Thanks. H. William Swanstrom Locke Liddell & Sapp LLP bswanstrom@lockeliddell.com (713) 226-1143 ? -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Peter J. [mailto:pthompson@akllp.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2001 12:02 AM To: taylor.terry@corp.sysco.com; katz.aaron@corp.sysco.com; bswanstrom@lockeliddell.com Cc: Chuck Randall (E-mail); Hector Gutierrez (E-mail); Debbie Asmus (E-mail); Mike Smith (E-mail); Chris Riley (E-mail); elizabeth.sager@enron.com Subject: Sysco Energy Services and Sales Agreement ??? ??????? Pursuant to the request of our client, Enron Energy Services, Inc., attached please find a clean copy of the most recent draft of the Sysco Energy Services and Sales Agreement (second document below), as well as a blackline (first document below) showing changes to the version sent to Sysco on May 18.? The 80% of Anticipated Usage concept could not be included in Section 3.5 due to time constraints.? Section 3.5 will be revised to include such concept and provided as soon as possible. ?<>? <> ? - 52201 redline Energy Sales Agreement to Sysco1.DOC